“It is not sought whether the relation is favourable to intelligence & moral excellence or unfavorable; not whether it adds to, or takes from, the means of national safety. It is not inquired whether the relation is liable to abuses or is in fact greatly abused, but whether the relation is such that the slave-holder, *because he is a slave-holder,* is excluded from Heaven, as the thief is, the liar, the drunkard, or the covetous man, who is an idolator.” A detailed and charateristic so-called moderate defense of American slavery, delivered during the ferment of the debate over the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and the passage of the Kansas-Nebrasa Act, with much on the paternalistic obligations of slaveholders as commensurate with those of husband or parent, the preponderance of Churches who accept slaveholders in their ranks as a measure of its fitness before God, and the legalistic definition of slavery as a relationship of obligation and labor rather than ownership. The unknown author argues that emancipation will only be appropriate once the class of slaves has been elevated by literacy, intact families, and exposure to the Gospel; in the meantime, the spectre of popular sovereignty is invoked, the transfer of property rights into the territories is affirmed, legal questions that would be addressed in Dred Scott are also addressed, and colonization encouraged: “Congress ought to adopt & adhere to a well-digested & uniform policy, liberal especially to all free persons of colour who may be willing to seek their own happiness & to carry with them our free Institutions to the Land of moral & political darkness.” With a few corrections and emendations throughout.